How insurer expectations of lithium battery fire risks are changing

Lithium-ion batteries haven’t suddenly appeared in the world. But if you’re placing or owning property risk, you’ll have noticed something has changed: the underwriting conversation has sharpened.

Not because underwriters have become “anti-battery”. In most sectors, batteries are now part of normal operations. E-mobility, tools, plant, cleaning equipment, tenant devices, stored goods, returns, even on-site energy storage all make use of them.

What’s changed is this: insurers are less willing to rely on assumption. They want to understand the exposure properly, and they want to see that it’s being managed with intent rather than left to informal practice.

At RiskSTOP, we spend a lot of time working alongside insurers, underwriters and risk engineers, and equally with brokers and clients trying to make premises more resilient and more insurable. From that vantage point, the direction of travel is clear.

From awareness to scrutiny

For a period, lithium-ion battery fire risk sat in the “emerging” bracket. They were acknowledged, sometimes discussed, but often treated as something to pick up only if there had been an incident, a large fleet, or an obvious storage operation.

That’s not where we are now.

Incident reporting continues to reinforce that shift.

London Fire Brigade has described record levels of e-bike and e-scooter fires in 2025 and continues to call for tighter controls around unsafe batteries, chargers and conversion kits.

More underwriters are treating lithium-ion exposure as a mainstream property consideration. The shift is closely linked to how they view potential loss.

The focus has broadened to include severity, escalation and aggregation:

• what happens when a battery failure occurs in a high-value area

• what changes when multiple batteries are charging or stored together

• how quickly an incident can move beyond a localised problem

• whether the building and the operation have evolved, but the fire strategy hasn’t

That way of thinking moves lithium-ion batteries from something that is simply noted to something that needs to be properly understood. And in underwriting terms, that distinction matters.

It’s also telling that standards are evolving to reflect the distinct characteristics of lithium-ion battery fires, with BS ISO 3941:2026 introducing a dedicated classification.

What insurers are now paying closer attention to

Approaches vary by insurer and by occupancy, so there isn’t a single market position. But there are recurring themes in the questions and follow-ups we’re seeing.

It’s less “do you have lithium-ion batteries?” and more:

Where are they in your operation and how do you control the way they’re used?

Common areas of focus include:

• Bulk charging and storage arrangements

  Underwriters are increasingly alert to the difference between “we charge a few devices” and “we regularly have multiple units on charge, at scale, for long periods”.

  
  

• Supervision and segregation of charging areas

  Charging wherever there happens to be a socket is exactly the kind of practice that gets challenged. Insurers want to understand whether charging is treated as a controlled activity or an incidental one.

  
  

• Handling of damaged, returned or suspect batteries

  This is a common weak point. What happens when a battery is dropped, swells, overheats, fails in use, or is returned? Is there a defined process, or does it sit in general storage until someone has time to deal with it?

  
  

• Premises suitability

  Many sites were never designed with lithium-ion charging or storage in mind. Underwriters and risk engineers are alive to that mismatch and will probe whether operations have outgrown the original assumptions of the building.

  
  

• Evidence of active risk management

  Insurers are looking for signs that the exposure has been identified and owned: clear risk assessment, defined responsibility and controls that reflect day-to-day reality — not just a generic statement.

  
  

This shift is partly driven by the recognition that lithium-ion battery use often grows incrementally, without formal controls evolving at the same pace. Insurers such as Aviva have previously pointed to gaps between day-to-day battery use and the consistent application of basic safety guidance, reinforcing the move away from assumption-based underwriting.

Why this matters for brokers and property owners

For brokers, this is increasingly a placement issue as much as a risk issue.

Lithium-ion battery exposure can lead to:

• more detailed pre-renewal questions

• follow-up queries once an underwriter looks closely

• greater reliance on consistent, evidenced risk information

• less tolerance for vague or assumption-based answers

This reflects messaging coming directly from parts of the insurance market.

In recent broker guidance, QBE has noted that lithium-ion battery exposures are prompting deeper underwriting questions, and in some cases closer scrutiny of terms, while also highlighting that clear, credible and well-evidenced risk information allows underwriters to engage more constructively with the risk.

For property owners and occupiers, the impact is often felt at renewal. Lithium-ion exposure can influence how smooth (or how difficult) that process becomes.

That doesn’t mean automatic exclusions or punitive terms. But where exposure is unclear or unmanaged, the conversation is more likely to be slower, deeper and more challenging than it was historically.

The part that often gets missed

Most organisations don’t make a single decision to “introduce lithium-ion battery risk”.

It builds gradually.

A growing fleet. More devices. Changes in tenant activity. Returns being held longer than intended. Contractors charging equipment on site. Temporary arrangements becoming normal practice.

None of that is unusual. But it can mean the risk profile shifts quietly, until it’s tested by insurer questions.

The organisations that fare best aren’t necessarily the most complex or over-engineered. They’re the ones that can explain, calmly and clearly:

• what’s on site

• how it’s used

• how charging and storage are controlled

• how exceptions are handled

• who owns the risk

That clarity goes a long way in building underwriter confidence.

RiskSTOP’s role - lithium battery risks

RiskSTOP isn’t an insurer. We don’t underwrite property risk.

What we do is work closely with insurers, underwriters and risk engineers, while also supporting brokers and clients in the places where these risks exist in the real world.

That gives us a clear view of how expectations are changing and where organisations tend to struggle.

In practice, our role is often to help:

• explain why lithium-ion questions are being asked now

• align real-world operations with insurer expectations

• strengthen the evidence behind the risk story presented at renewal

Detailed technical guidance on lithium-ion battery fire risk already exists. This piece isn’t trying to replace that. It’s about the underwriting conversation, because that’s where the shift is being felt most clearly.

Looking ahead

Lithium-ion batteries are now part of everyday operations across many property portfolios.

What’s changing is the level of scrutiny and the emphasis on being able to demonstrate that the exposure is understood and actively managed.

For brokers and property owners, that’s less about reacting late and more about getting ahead of the conversation — early, clearly and with a position that stands up when it’s tested.

Interested in hearing more about lithium battery fires and solutions? Join RiskSTOP’s webinar for expert insight into this evolving risk, including a live Q&A session. You can register your interest here.